BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 07/07/2010

Date of Order : 06/08/2011

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 380/2010

Between

 

And

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. The facts of the case leading to this complaint are as follows :

The complainant purchased a Chevrlet Tavera Car with the financial assistance of the opposite parties. The total amount advanced was Rs. 7,20,000/- which was to be repaid in 60 equated monthly instalments. The last of which was scheduled on 01-10-2009. The complainant had repaid the loan entirely within the stipulated period. Thereafter, when the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party for No Objection Certificate for clearance of endorsement of loan in the RC book, they demanded an amount of Rs. 59,856/- over and above the loan amount already paid. The amount is said to be consisted of Rs. 47,207/- towards late payment penalty and Rs. 12,649/- towards cheque bouncing and other charges. The complainant is not liable to pay any amount as claimed by the opposite parties. The demand to pay the amount is a condition for issuance of NOC is nothing but a ruse to extract money from the complainant. The complainant caused to issue a notice to the opposite parties demanding to issue NOC but there was no response. Thus, the complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite parties to issue the NOC and to pay compensation and costs of the proceedings.

2. Version of the opposite parties :

As per the loan agreement, the complainant had to repay the loan in 60 equated monthly instalments of Rs. 16,042/- each. As per the loan agreement between the complainant and the opposite parties, the EMI was supposed to be remitted on 1^st day of every month and for defaults, if any the complainant would be liable for cheque bouncing charges and over due charges. The complainant had been a defaulter from the 3^rd instalment onwards and the EMI cheques got dishonoured. As the complainant defaulted the EMI payments, he is liable to pay the above charges. As per the statement of accounts dated 26-08-2010, the complainant is to pay an amount of Rs. 59,856/-. The opposite parties request to dismiss the complaint.

3. The power of attorney holder of the complainant was examined as PW1, Exts. A1 to A4 were marked on the side of the complainant. The witness for the opposite parties was examined as DW1 and Exts. B1 and B2 were marked on the part of the opposite parties. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

4. During the proceedings in this Forum at the instance of the complainant vide order in I.A. 418/2010 dated 31-07-2010, we passed the following order :

1. Respondents/opposite parties shall forthwith issue the requisite NOC for clearance of endorsement of lien in the RC book pertaining to the vehicle bearing Reg. No. KL-6C/5045 immediately on receipt of the order.

    

2. Petitioner/Complainant shall furnish in the Forum a bank guarantee to the tune of Rs. 60,000/- within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this order.”

The parties complied with the above order of this Forum without demur.

5. The points that emanated for consideration are :-

i) Whether the complainant is liable to pay

Rs. 59,856/- to the opposite parties?

ii) Compensation and costs of the proceedings?

6. Point No. i. :- It is not in dispute that the complainant had availed himself of a loan to the tune of Rs. 7,20,000/- to purchase his car bearing Registration No. KL-6C/5045. It is also not in dispute that the complainant had remitted the 60 equated monthly instalments of Rs. 16,042/- each with the opposite party which was ended on 01-10-2009 entirely. As per Ext. A1, the complainant was called upon to pay Rs. 47,207/- and Rs. 12,649/- as over due interest penalty and cheque bouncing charges respectively.

7. DW1, the 2^nd opposite party admitted in evidence that they had issued notice to the complainant demanding payment of the above amounts. However, nothing is on record before us to substantiate the same. What is not substantiated unequivocally is not sustainable in law where the opposite parties fail.

8. It is pertinent to note that the opposite parties are demanding the impugned amounts on the basis of an agreement entered into between the complainant and the opposite parties. But they have not produced the said agreement in this Forum for our perusal and consideration. The non-production of such a vital document goes against the case of the opposite parties ab initio. The complainant has a case that the opposite party had not respond to Ext. A4 notice before approaching this Forum to this again the opposite parties have no explanation. Having appreciated at the first instance the opposite parties are now reprobating in this Forum which rule of law does not consider.

9. In the proven status of the case, the complainant having fully settled the loan amount but since the opposite parties have failed to substantiate their claim of the increased amounts lack of proof which is clear for non-production of the same paves way for this Forum to bend in favour of the complainant. If one were to know and understand this case here one may not but be able to recall or remember William Shakespere's “Merchant of Venice” .

10. Since the primary grievance of the complainant has been met even prior to the final decision in this case no compensation and costs are called for.

11. In the result, the Registry of this Forum is directed to return the bank guarantee for Rs. 60,000/- produced in this Forum in compliance of the order of this Forum in I.A. No. 418/2010 dated 31-07-2010 for due process.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 6^th day of August 2011.